At 10:03 07/07/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Keith, first, let me say for everyone that we hope that fatalities and
injuries will be minimal, under the circumstances. I now see the headlines
have updated the fatalities to 33 and injuries around 1000. The phrase
"worst attack in London since WW2" has been used.
The fatality figure has yet to be topped up with the number who died in the tourist bus -- something the authorities refuse to talk about yet. Obviously, it's a more sensitive figure than any others and, in any case, they may not be sure how many have died yet -- body parts having been well scattered around.
They have changed their minds here and raised the terror alert to Orange on
mass transportation. I'm so glad you mentioned the IRA experiences, because
one of my first random thoughts was that it's "a good thing" this happened
in the UK, already tested for their response to bombings on their home
territory. An attack like this in the US would be seized as justification
for increased militarization, bring out the crazies (many fully armed) and
abused for all its worth politically (again).
For that reason I don't think there'll be another organised Al Qaeda attack on the American mainland. It would be counter-productive and swing popular opinion firmly behind Bush again. There may be one or two individual events, of course.
On that note, did I read that recent elections in Spain reversed or turned
back the last post-Madrid bombing elections?
Not sure what you mean here. As far as I'm aware there have been no elections since the one immediately after the Madrid bombing.
It isn't as clear to me as you think that the attacks were aimed at sullying
Bush per se; it would seem that if planned in advance they could easily have
been timed to discredit Blair for being Bush's 'co-pilot' on the Iraq war
faked intelligence and military offensive.
I'm not adamant about it being mainly an anti-Bush event but I don't think Al Qaeda have anywhere near the same animus against Blair. But, from their point of view, the G8 Conference was a happy conjunction that could aim at both. The more I think about the attack the more I think that it was very carefully planned so that it would create as much economic damage to this country as possible. It was no coincidence that it was a tourist bus that was blown up and also that it was carried out at a particular time of the day (9.00am) when it would catch commuters only. No children have been killed.
I think the pressure on Blair from the international business community in London (as well as the UK tourist industry and the London retail trade) to bring back British troops from Iraq will be considerable -- though privately expressed -- from now onwards and is likely to be successful in the coming months.
I wonder how coincidental it is that I found a headline today stating that
"there were nearly 3,200 terrorist attacks worldwide last year, a federal
counterterrorism center said yesterday, using a broader definition that
increased fivefold the number of attacks the agency had been counting."
(numbers include Iraq) *
As Blackmore was speculating earlier this morning, one has to wonder what
reaction governments take towards immigration. The EU is launching and the
US reinstituting one-way airplane flights to deport illegal aliens.** We
like to think that we've made significant progress here against racism, but
events like this force us to examine just how shallow or real those changes
are in the face of fear, real and manufactured.
The anti-immigration trend was already in full spate in the last two or three months and the Labour government followed the Tory Party in taking this on board because of the growing success of the British National Party. The idea of a biometric identity card was actually introduced two months ago as an anti-terrorist measure and the government almost succeeded in getting the support of the Tories -- and of public opinion generally. But the opposition to it grew surprisingly quickly and the Tories took advantage by turning against it also. It was then that government ministers started talking about the identity card being able to prevent welfare benefit fraud -- in other words, immigrants -- which is what the public feel most strongly about.
In my readings and writings about the separation of church and state, in
pointing my shame finger at religious cultural wars, I keep thinking how
much goodwill it might generate if the President attended church in
different faiths, perhaps quarterly (to allow the Secret Service to
prepare). It could allay much of the suspicion in the Muslim world that
American imperialism is really a jihad against Islam, and it would
discourage or at least quiet the zealots of Christianity from the language
that has been used to justify imperialism. It wouldn't deter real
terrorists, of course, but advance the image of traditional American values
promoting diversity and democracy.
I rather think attempts like this are seen through -- whether they are sincere or not.
Unfortunately, if these were just photo ops to counter sagging polls, the
message would be superficial at best. Mr. Bush has a credibility problem
with too many of us that even his reasonable, comforting statements are no
longer taken seriously.
They say we are revealed by our reaction to events. Bush has been running on
one track since 9/11 but the 'political capital' has been running low. His
response to this and events unfolding in the next 6 weeks will tell us
whether or not the summer of 2005 will become what the summer of 1968 was
for another earlier troubled Republican president. It'll be interesting to
see how Blair/Brown respond, as well.
I think that secret talks between extremist Sunnis and the CIA/State Department have been extensive for a long time (probably originally organised by Negroponte when he was there) but the sticking point is the retention of long-term American bases in Iraq even if the bulk of the troops go home -- which I think Bush would gladly do at the drop of a hat otherwise. I see that Iran, since the last election, is now raising this very pointedly. Another problem in Iraq which is now rearing its head is that between the Basra Shias and the Shia-dominated 'government' in Baghdad. Sunnis are now being persecuted in Basra in the same way that they are in the Kurdish region and what is a de facto independent Shiastan (as the de facto Kurdistan) might well become a de jure one if Ayatollah Sistani can't hold the ring for much longer or dies.
Keith
Karen
* Revised Terrorist Attacks Numbers
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05187/533434.stm
** Now departing for Mexico, one-way flights for illegals
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0707/p01s04-woam.html
I've been looking at BBC TV for the past two hours as reports have been
coming in about the deaths and injured. The whole London Underground has
been shut down, there are no buses and many roads are jammed. The latest
count for the injured is 190.
The official figure of deaths so far is 2, but Italian radio is talking of
50 which I would guess is more nearly correct as a proportion of the
numbers of injured coming into the individual London hospitals. Even so,
the number of deaths may not be as high as might be expected.
I think that some significant features are already emerging even as injured
are still being brought in. Six underground stations have been attacked,
but only one bus and this was a tourist bus (the top of which was blown off
completely). In the latter case this must have been caused by a suicide
bomber and relatively many deaths will have resulted from this. However,
the attacks on the Underground give me the impression that their intention
was to disrupt London rather than to cause the maximum number of deaths.
The lack of evidence so far suggest that the bombs in this case were
tripped off by mobile phones, possibly in the entrances of the tunnels and
not on board the trains, as in Madrid -- where the number of deaths was
very much higher.
So this attack on London was probably originally planned when it was known
weeks ago that Bush was going to attend the G8 Conference in Gleneagles
Hotel in Scotland. At the same time, however, the attack on the tourist bus
and the nature of the attacks on the Underground, seem to have been
designed to have maximum economic effect. I think Al Qaeda are now learning
the lessons of the IRA when the latter stopped personnel bombings in
Northern Ireland and blew up the Armitage shopping mall in Manchester (one
of the largest in the country) and the Baltic Exchange (which was unusable
afterwards) in London. One or two more of these sorts of attacks on
financial buildings in London and the city might have been in danger of
losing large numbers of foreign banks and finance houses and its high
position in world finance (and very high export earnings from its
services). The IRA thereby gained negotiations with the government for the
first time. I think Al Qaeda have now learned this from the IRA and this
will strengthen the Sunnis' hand in the secret negotiations with America in
Baghdad.
Blair intends to do what I intimated in my earlier message that he ought to
do and that is to fly down to London this afternoon to co-ordinate (or be
seen to coordinate) the emergency services. This attack on London will be a
major embarassment to him, just as concern about British troops in Iraq was
beginning to die down and B lairthoughthe'dweathuredtheworstofit.
Blair has already appeared on TV saying that we will not be defeated by
terrorism. But the economic cost of these seven bombs will have cost
billions in lost tourist revenue and incidentals and might even put the
London location of the 2012 Olympic Games in jeopardy unless the Iraq
situation is sorted out within the next couple of years.
It is almost certainly Al Qaeda behind these attacks. Frank Gardner, the
BBC Foreign Correspondent (still paralysed after being shot in Saudi Arabia
within two hours of filming in Riyadh) and as knowledgeable about Middle
East affairs as anybody, thinks that Al Jazeera's opinion on its website is
correct.
What else can be said at this stage? If President Bush were the sort of
person who would be sensitive to other countries' and other politicians'
feelings then he ought to be mightily embarrassed for the disaster he has
now brought to this country. As it is, the 20,000+ security guards and
police already ringed around Gleneagles Hotel (except for the guard who was
knocked over by Bush's bicycle yesterday) will probably be augmented and,
who knows?, Bush might even fly home before the G8 Conference gets under
way. But, of course, the most important person in the US who was
immediately protected after 9/11 was Cheney, so he's safe in the US and
Bush's minders and PR people might decide that Bush will 'bravely' stay
where he is for the time being.
Incidentally, in one of the UK papers this morning (I've forgotten which)
it is reported that Saudi Arabia says it cannot ramp up the supply of oil
as it promised only a few weeks ago. So it certainly looks as though Iraq's
northern oilfields are now the largest reserves in the world --
potentially, that is, when they get developed. Anybody who thinks that the
invasion of Iraq was anything to do with any other motive than oil must be
very naive indeed.
Keith Hudson
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
